What gets me is that he's about to release it to an university and yet he manages to miss the most obvious resource yet: university personell. Unless the school lacks a CS department, there should be CS professors, CS grad students, and undergrads all available to work on the project.
If you really want to be on the bleeding edge, shouldn't you be on one of the distros that has a genuine rolling schedule, such as Gentoo or whatever? That way it's always "up to date" and there's never really a point in time where the packages halt (though I suppose a new Linux kernel or GCC version could slow things down for a day or two). AFAIK you can use gentoo without actually compiling everything from source.
You define "having something to do" as "apt-get update"? If you're a developer I would expect you to be working on the Stable release; if you're just an end user, why do you care if some package doesn't update for a month or so?
Agreed. I find it pathetic that these people are running around chasing after the guy. It's almost as if they're scared of him. They are almost certainly the same people who downmodded Twitter into -1 land in the first place, otherwise, why would they care so much?
Why are you maximizing your browser? I have my Pidgin buddy list on the upper right, a terminal (partly covered by the browser) on the lower right, the browser taking up about 2/3 of the screen dead center, and my desktop icons are visible on the left. If I open another window (say a PDF reader or OO.org) it goes to the left of the browser, just wider than a page, so that it overlaps the browser somewhat.
This idea that browsers should be maximized is a disease. Do your part to eradicate it.
Okay, seriously, what's the point of invite-only registration? I see right now, it says you have to be an invite, but it also says (on the "got an invite?" page) that they open registration to the public once a month.
If they're trying to keep the MAFIAA out via invite-only reg, then why the hell would it ever be open to the public at all?
Congratulations on eliminating hobbyist programming and having nothing left BUT the megacorps like Microsoft.
No thanks. It's suitable for engineering firms where physical harm can be done, but it's definitely not suitable for software. This is nothing more than a legal framework for Trusted Computing.
Compiz does something similar with super-M and super-N. One inverts the current window, one inverts the whole screen. Beware, this is INVERSION- it will screw up pictures and the like; but for plain text it should be fine.
If I have 100 or even 1000 shares, I have less than 0.1% of a say on a company. Usually there's a small number of shareholders that have a supermajority, a bunch of employees that make up a fair bit of what's left, and the public is effectively shut out of all decision making.
It'd be like if the Republicans had 90 Senators, 400 Representatives, and the White house, but claim that the Democrats "have a say". Technically, sure; but practically they don't.
(This is just an example, you may reverse the party alignments or refer to third parties or whatever. The point stands.)
I coded a Brainfuck *interpreter* in an assembly language for one of my classes this semester. Not bragging (it really wasn't that hard) but just throwing that out there.
The idea is not that you check every single line of code ran by your company. The idea is that SOMEONE does.
There's plenty of people reviewing the Linux kernel. There's plenty of people reviewing X. There's plenty reviewing GNOME (or KDE). There's plenty of people reviewing Apache, Postgres, etc. So you hire someone to write some webapp, that's the only code you *have* to review- because all the other stuff is reviewed by someone.
But if it's entirely closed, you would have to trust the company. This is the case with Microsoft. They can do whatever they want because nobody can review it.
I'm not a biologist, but it's painfully obvious why so much reporting is done about biology. Specifically, one element of biology. Evolution. Despite the fact that it's been demonstrated in the lab and has been widely accepted as theory in the scientific community for over a century now, there is a massive group of people who refuse to accept evolution because it conflicts with their religious brainwashing.
I wouldn't really treat games as "software". They're more along the lines of works of art, such as movies or books. Multiplayer games have to be locked down in some sense- what good is a game when someone can patch it so he has an aimbot built into the source code or score 10 times as many points as everyone else?
And there are plenty of single-player games with a hefty focus on the story- a version of FF7 which let you Phoenix Down Aeris would be fairly messed up.
I certainly agree that games should be freely copiable just as any other random collection of bytes on my hard drive; but I'm not so sure about the whole "distributing modified copies" part for what is an artistic endeavor.
The approach is not to teach them about cryptography. (Remember the concepts of UI design! The algorithm should be transparent to the end user!) The approach is to go "well, you could make it so that I can't do that. Here's how." and show them PGP or whatever.
I didn't think Alyx was that over-the-top. Sure, she's not ugly, but then again they generally don't make the males be ugly either. Alyx had a fairly average build and would look completely out of place in DOA Volleyball.
Look at the guys in video games and can you honestly say it's sexism so much as it is "we just don't want to make you play the ugly person"?
Pretty much every game with a buttload of NPCs actually has ugly NPCs of both genders.
Historical footnote: there was a battle fought in Louisiana after the peace treaty was signed. There were likely many others, but that's the only one I can think of offhand.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm under the impression that he wouldn't be able to run as VP after he's had 8 years of the Presidency.
It's how religious people rationalize *everything*. Any evidence that their beliefs are false is taken as a "test of faith".
What gets me is that he's about to release it to an university and yet he manages to miss the most obvious resource yet: university personell. Unless the school lacks a CS department, there should be CS professors, CS grad students, and undergrads all available to work on the project.
If you really want to be on the bleeding edge, shouldn't you be on one of the distros that has a genuine rolling schedule, such as Gentoo or whatever? That way it's always "up to date" and there's never really a point in time where the packages halt (though I suppose a new Linux kernel or GCC version could slow things down for a day or two).
AFAIK you can use gentoo without actually compiling everything from source.
You define "having something to do" as "apt-get update"? If you're a developer I would expect you to be working on the Stable release; if you're just an end user, why do you care if some package doesn't update for a month or so?
Agreed. I find it pathetic that these people are running around chasing after the guy. It's almost as if they're scared of him. They are almost certainly the same people who downmodded Twitter into -1 land in the first place, otherwise, why would they care so much?
Why are you maximizing your browser? I have my Pidgin buddy list on the upper right, a terminal (partly covered by the browser) on the lower right, the browser taking up about 2/3 of the screen dead center, and my desktop icons are visible on the left.
If I open another window (say a PDF reader or OO.org) it goes to the left of the browser, just wider than a page, so that it overlaps the browser somewhat.
This idea that browsers should be maximized is a disease. Do your part to eradicate it.
To summarize the summary of the summary, people are a problem.
Okay, seriously, what's the point of invite-only registration? I see right now, it says you have to be an invite, but it also says (on the "got an invite?" page) that they open registration to the public once a month. If they're trying to keep the MAFIAA out via invite-only reg, then why the hell would it ever be open to the public at all?
Congratulations on eliminating hobbyist programming and having nothing left BUT the megacorps like Microsoft. No thanks. It's suitable for engineering firms where physical harm can be done, but it's definitely not suitable for software. This is nothing more than a legal framework for Trusted Computing.
Compiz does something similar with super-M and super-N. One inverts the current window, one inverts the whole screen. Beware, this is INVERSION- it will screw up pictures and the like; but for plain text it should be fine.
If I have 100 or even 1000 shares, I have less than 0.1% of a say on a company. Usually there's a small number of shareholders that have a supermajority, a bunch of employees that make up a fair bit of what's left, and the public is effectively shut out of all decision making. It'd be like if the Republicans had 90 Senators, 400 Representatives, and the White house, but claim that the Democrats "have a say". Technically, sure; but practically they don't. (This is just an example, you may reverse the party alignments or refer to third parties or whatever. The point stands.)
I coded a Brainfuck *interpreter* in an assembly language for one of my classes this semester. Not bragging (it really wasn't that hard) but just throwing that out there.
The burden of proof is on those who claim it to be fact. If you claim a book is nonfiction, prove it.
The idea is not that you check every single line of code ran by your company. The idea is that SOMEONE does. There's plenty of people reviewing the Linux kernel. There's plenty of people reviewing X. There's plenty reviewing GNOME (or KDE). There's plenty of people reviewing Apache, Postgres, etc. So you hire someone to write some webapp, that's the only code you *have* to review- because all the other stuff is reviewed by someone. But if it's entirely closed, you would have to trust the company. This is the case with Microsoft. They can do whatever they want because nobody can review it.
I'm not a biologist, but it's painfully obvious why so much reporting is done about biology.
Specifically, one element of biology. Evolution. Despite the fact that it's been demonstrated in the lab and has been widely accepted as theory in the scientific community for over a century now, there is a massive group of people who refuse to accept evolution because it conflicts with their religious brainwashing.
Congratulations. Now you're part of the problem because you're going to vote against any and all fixes that are proposed in favor of "the way it is".
I wouldn't really treat games as "software". They're more along the lines of works of art, such as movies or books. Multiplayer games have to be locked down in some sense- what good is a game when someone can patch it so he has an aimbot built into the source code or score 10 times as many points as everyone else? And there are plenty of single-player games with a hefty focus on the story- a version of FF7 which let you Phoenix Down Aeris would be fairly messed up. I certainly agree that games should be freely copiable just as any other random collection of bytes on my hard drive; but I'm not so sure about the whole "distributing modified copies" part for what is an artistic endeavor.
The approach is not to teach them about cryptography. (Remember the concepts of UI design! The algorithm should be transparent to the end user!) The approach is to go "well, you could make it so that I can't do that. Here's how." and show them PGP or whatever.
In theory, I like the approach of actually going through and giving these anti-privacy people exactly what they're asking for.
The question is not "can they sell it" (where "it" refers to an OS CD- ie, the binary) but "can they change the license on the source?"
If they don't have the copyright to it, they may not be able to.
I didn't think Alyx was that over-the-top. Sure, she's not ugly, but then again they generally don't make the males be ugly either. Alyx had a fairly average build and would look completely out of place in DOA Volleyball.
Look at the guys in video games and can you honestly say it's sexism so much as it is "we just don't want to make you play the ugly person"?
Pretty much every game with a buttload of NPCs actually has ugly NPCs of both genders.
Historical footnote: there was a battle fought in Louisiana after the peace treaty was signed. There were likely many others, but that's the only one I can think of offhand.
You (or whoever) should maybe consider a different name; if I were to hear "OpenVista" without context I'd assume it were a ReactOS-type deal.